The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to extension of service but must be paid salary and allowances for the period he worked after the 1996-97 session, relying on his past undertaking.
The petitioner shall be paid salary along with admissible allowances for the period he worked after the end of the session 1996-97.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
z BILASPUR HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH Writ Petition(S)No.1643of2005
RamPrakashDixit Petitioner Versus , The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Respondents Chhattisgarh )8Bothers
(SB:Hon’bleShriManindraMohanShrivastavaJ.)
Shri VirendraSharma,Advocateforthepetitioner. ShriBhaskarPyasi,PanelLawyerfortherespondents.
ORDER (Oral)
(Passedonthis5thdayofMarch,2010)
The petitionerhadfiledthispetitionbeforetheMadhyaPradeshState AdministrativeTribunal,Jabalpur.AfterdissolutionoftheTribunal, this matterwasreceivedontransfertothisCourtandwasregistered as w.P.(S)No.1643/2005.
This petitionhasbeenfiledbythepetitioner,aggrievedbytheorder dated29.8.1997 (AnnexureA/6)bywhichtheproposalforextension rejected.The petitioner is also of service of the petitionerhasbeen aggrievedbynon—paymentofsalary,asinrespectoftheperiodduring whichheworkedafterthedateofhisretirement,noremunerationhas been paidtohim.
The petitioner,whileworkingasDeputyDirector,Education,attained the ageofsuperannuationi.e.60yearsandaccordinglyhe‘wasretired from service w.e.f. 31.12.1996. An orderwas issued on 1.1.1997 (AnnexureA/ 2)bytheGovernment,directingtherespondentNo.3not p to retirethe petitionerw.e.f.31.12.1996astheordersregardinggrant of extensionhasbeenissuedbytheSecretarytotheChiefMinister. By the said communication dated 1.1.1997 the recommendation/ M '\ proposalfor /extensionwassought.
é m
The petitioner, in View of the aforesaid order dated 1.1.1997, continueduntiltheimpugnedorderdated29.8.1997waspassedby which the proposalfor grantofextensionofserviceofthepetitioner was rejected.
u
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitionerwasallowedtocontinueevenafterhisretirement,inViewof the order dated 1.1.1997, as there was an order issued by the Secretary to the Chief Minister for extension of service of the petitionerforaperiodofoneyearandtheproposalforhaextensionwas obtained. He further submits that in this View of the matter the respondents were duty bound to consider the same and pass necessary ordersforextension. ‘that Learned counsel appearing .for the petitioner argued the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary.The further submission of learned counselisthatinanycircumstanceswhenthepetitionerhas worked onthe postofDeputyDirector,Education,untiltheproposal for extensionwasrejected,the petitionerisentitledtoremuneration in respectoftheentire period. On the otherhand,thesubmissionoflearnedcounselappearingfor the respondents is that the petitionerhas no indefeasible right to claim extensioninserviceafterheattainedtheageofsuperannuation. ’be Subsequent grant of extension/reappointment, if any, cannot claimed asamatterofright.Thecaseofthepetitionerwasconsidered and it was notfound fit for grantofextension,whichresultedinto issue of the order dated 29.8.1997. It is submitted that the order dated 1.1.1997, in substancewasonlyacommunication, requiring . \ . . the concernedauthorities to sendrecommendation for extens1on of the petitioner,inviewofthe policyandthesamewasrequiredtobe
\
MW
considered by the competent authority. Since it was not found appropriate to give extension to the petitioner in service, the proposal was rejected. I have considered the rival contention of learned counsel appearing for the. parties and perused the record. The communication dated 1.1.1997, in substance, is not an order of extension but it only refers to a tentative decision taken and requires the concerned authority to send proposal recommending the extension. The order dated 29.8.1997, passed by the respondents/State shows that the proposal for extension was considered and the same was rejected. i 10. In the return it has been stated that after receiving all the documents sent by the Joint Director, School Education, Raipur, the proposal was considered and it was found that the petitioner was not entitled for further extension for a period of one year and therefore the proposalwasrejected by the Government. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right the extension in service. Though, while continuing in service the petitioner is entitled to continue in service, except when he could be removed or dismissed from service, until he attains the age of superannuation. However, no such right continues after he attain the age of superannuation. The petitioner has not demonstrated with reference to any of the Govt. policy of extension/re—appointment that his case was not considered properly or there was an obligation on the respondents/State to necessarily grant extension to the petitioner. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the submission that the rejection of the proposal regarding the petitioner’sextension was, in any manner, illegal.
W?
i
Sd/.— ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period worked after the end of the 1996-97 session despite rejection of extension proposal.
Whether the communication dated 1.1.1997 operated as an order extension of service.
Whether the petitioner has a right to extension of service or appointment.
Ram Prakash Dixit
The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Respondents Chhattisgarh)
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
